At this moment, this tournament encourage attacking low-pop npcs and avoid the big one.

Random is... well... random, even when weighted.But if this gives the feeling that we therefore have a tournament that means that the smaller players in the game have a darn good chance of winning in the 3 individual categories by concentrating on the smaller spawns (but being very proactive and hunting them out, or very selective and only hunting one particular beastie, or whatever...), then I think it's a uniquely awesome piece of tournament design, so hurrah for us! SC

When you put it that way I guess I like the fact the smaller mobs give more awards.

If I may inset my person in to this discussion. While the tournament in nice, and I and some members are participating, those with larger armies, the players who have been in the game longer will be the ones winning.

They have the ability to train hundreds of soldiers as the weeks go by, mass produce equipment, have proper taxation for said soldiers.

The only "Win" i and my members will receive from this, is a few levels to our commanders, from attacking all the npc's.

I have one account out of the alliance atm.If I move it in again, will those parts be lost to the alliance?As it is only clarified for switching allies...

Hi Hora,

Items collected always count to your player (individual) total Items collected whilst you are in an alliance count towards that alliances' totalItems collected whist you are not in an alliance do not count toward that alliances' totalMoving into or out of alliances does not move your Individual total-to-date into or out of that alliance

At this moment, this tournament encourage attacking low-pop npcs and avoid the big one.

Random is... well... random, even when weighted.

But if this gives the feeling that we therefore have a tournament that means that the smaller players in the game have a darn good chance of winning in the 3 individual categories by concentrating on the smaller spawns (but being very proactive and hunting them out, or very selective and only hunting one particular beastie, or whatever...), then I think it's a uniquely awesome piece of tournament design, so hurrah for us!

SC

On the contrary, this design will make it harder for the lower populated players to participate in the tournament. Consider the current design: it gives you more to zerging low populated npcs. And therefore the larger players will avoid the huge NPCs armies out there.

Lets take my area and see how much of a chance the low pop villages around me have:

I am a paying player (prestige) and at the current moment I got, even after the loss, 13k tier 2 cavalry splitted in two cities. And now I use 5 armies in both, meaning I got 10 quick armies to hunt down NPCs. And I go for the low pop. Also, I started training 10k tier 2 infantry, and I expect having 20-25 armies fully equipped for dealing with most NPCs in this area within the week and it will grow bigger the further in the tournament.

This is zerging and it will leave very little room for the low-pop players to actually be able to get NPCs they can deal with. And it ruins the low-pop players chance of enjoying the tournament, just because their target is more rewarding than what would be seen as my target.

Bigger target should really equals bigger awards. And if you want to give the non-paying players a chance of actually getting something: split the tournament into divisions.

One division for 1-500 pop, one for 501-1500 and so on. Same goes for alliances. This will create competition between equals instead of ScottFitz that is ranked 6 in pop and only a handful can compete with him.

Edit:

Secondly, this design also goes against the general design of Illyriad. The one that Massive commented on as a good thing. Normally, you can take your time and doesn't have to worry about log in twelve times a day and four times a night to survive. Things take time and that is what we all have got used to and prefer it. This tournament however, isn't going to be about that what-so-ever. If you want to win this, be very big and attack ALOT, I mean, A - LOT.

Last tournament was about tactics, decisions and timing. It required very little extra time really and was more tactical. It draw several of my alliance members back into the game. However, this tournament alienates them as it suddenly becomes very time-consuming.

On the contrary, this design will make it harder for the lower populated players to participate in the tournament. Consider the current design: it gives you more to zerging low populated npcs. And therefore the larger players will avoid the huge NPCs armies out there.

Lets take my area and see how much of a chance the low pop villages around me have:

I am a paying player (prestige) and at the current moment I got, even after the loss, 13k tier 2 cavalry splitted in two cities. And now I use 5 armies in both, meaning I got 10 quick armies to hunt down NPCs. And I go for the low pop. Also, I started training 10k tier 2 infantry, and I expect having 20-25 armies fully equipped for dealing with most NPCs in this area within the week and it will grow bigger the further in the tournament.

This is zerging and it will leave very little room for the low-pop players to actually be able to get NPCs they can deal with. And it ruins the low-pop players chance of enjoying the tournament, just because their target is more rewarding than what would be seen as my target.

Bigger target should really equals bigger awards. And if you want to give the non-paying players a chance of actually getting something: split the tournament into divisions.

One division for 1-500 pop, one for 501-1500 and so on. Same goes for alliances. This will create competition between equals instead of ScottFitz that is ranked 6 in pop and only a handful can compete with him.

I'm not suggesting that a small player is likely to win against a larger player in the total or unique categories - but isn't that an entirely natural situation?

I do think, however, that smaller players have a good chance of winning the individual Hunter categories if they concentrate on one type of animal - or especially are located in an area where unusual animal types spawn. I mean, there are animals out there still that not one player has killed yet, and it is in these categories that I believe smaller individual players can shine.

At the end of the day, the player (army speed inclusive) closest to the spawn that they want who is quickest off the mark will get the kill and the drop - not the largest player.

Most large players have grouped their cities into certain parts of the world, and they are therefore - by nature of distance - going to have trouble winning many of the Hunter categories for beasts that aren't in biomes near them. Geographic location will certainly have an advantage in the Hunting categories, and a small player has an advantage over a large player in this once we re-allow moving capital cities (which will be back shortly) if they choose to relocate.

In regards to other suggestions, thank you - they're noted for future tournaments.

On the contrary, this design will make it harder for the lower populated players to participate in the tournament. Consider the current design: it gives you more to zerging low populated npcs. And therefore the larger players will avoid the huge NPCs armies out there.

Lets take my area and see how much of a chance the low pop villages around me have:

I am a paying player (prestige) and at the current moment I got, even after the loss, 13k tier 2 cavalry splitted in two cities. And now I use 5 armies in both, meaning I got 10 quick armies to hunt down NPCs. And I go for the low pop. Also, I started training 10k tier 2 infantry, and I expect having 20-25 armies fully equipped for dealing with most NPCs in this area within the week and it will grow bigger the further in the tournament.

This is zerging and it will leave very little room for the low-pop players to actually be able to get NPCs they can deal with. And it ruins the low-pop players chance of enjoying the tournament, just because their target is more rewarding than what would be seen as my target.

Bigger target should really equals bigger awards. And if you want to give the non-paying players a chance of actually getting something: split the tournament into divisions.

One division for 1-500 pop, one for 501-1500 and so on. Same goes for alliances. This will create competition between equals instead of ScottFitz that is ranked 6 in pop and only a handful can compete with him.

I'm not suggesting that a small player is likely to win against a larger player in the total or unique categories - but isn't that an entirely natural situation?

I do think, however, that smaller players have a good chance of winning the individual Hunter categories if they concentrate on one type of animal - or especially are located in an area where unusual animal types spawn. I mean, there are animals out there still that not one player has killed yet, and it is in these categories that I believe smaller individual players can shine.

At the end of the day, the player (army speed inclusive) closest to the spawn that they want who is quickest off the mark will get the kill and the drop - not the largest player.

Most large players have grouped their cities into certain parts of the world, and they are therefore - by nature of distance - going to have trouble winning many of the Hunter categories for beasts that aren't in biomes near them. Geographic location will certainly have an advantage in the Hunting categories, and a small player has an advantage over a large player in this once we re-allow moving capital cities (which will be back shortly) if they choose to relocate.

In regards to other suggestions, thank you - they're noted for future tournaments.

Regards,

SC

I was under the impression that there was two goals. One is that just the cheer number of things, and the other was the cheer number of different things. But there is also one that is for each category, eg. spiders and bears? If so, cool. But I still find my critique in its right place, but its a matter of opinions I guess.

I edited my post, but you wrote your post at the same time so I will point to it in hope for some respons on that. :)

But there is also one that is for each category, eg. spiders and bears? If so, cool.

Yes, very much so:

GM Stormcrow wrote:

INDIVIDUAL PRIZES - GREATEST HUNTERSEach individual who retrieves the greatest number of creature anatomical specimens from each different type of creature (eg Rats, Scritchers, Bears etc) will receive the following reward:

Each 1st place winner: 100 Prestige and 10 Praetorian Guard units.

This
category means that there is an individual winner for wolves, a winner
for rats, a winner for mammoths etc - based on the total number of
anatomical specimens you collect.

Secondly, this design also goes against the general design of Illyriad. The one that Massive commented on as a good thing. Normally, you can take your time and doesn't have to worry about log in twelve times a day and four times a night to survive. Things take time and that is what we all have got used to and prefer it. This tournament however, isn't going to be about that what-so-ever. If you want to win this, be very big and attack ALOT, I mean, A - LOT.

Last tournament was about tactics, decisions and timing. It required very little extra time really and was more tactical. It draw several of my alliance members back into the game. However, this tournament alienates them as it suddenly becomes very time-consuming.

The first tournament was a tournament where only alliances could participate and there was little chance for a smaller alliance to win because largest number of units on a square essentially equated to victory (be that achieved by better strategic choices, more friends, co-ordinated attacks or whatever... it was still largely a numbers game). Nothing wrong with that, but this tournament is different!

In this tournament, anyone can participate with a decent chance of winning something by choosing a winnable category based on their location and the spawns around them and then putting some effort in to win without having a massive army or being part of a large alliance.

I say... more power to the smaller player who is willing to put some effort in to "beat" the 'less hungry' big boys, given that the smaller players can't compete on army size!

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum